Of all the topics that there are to back a candidate for in this day and age, with war and the economy crumbling, it boggles the mind that the one item you list is abortion. You are not a woman. Let them choose on their own.

If a pro-lifer considers life to begin at conception, then he would obviously think that abortion has taken far more lives than the war has. I'm pro-choice and I really wish people would just deal with it and let the woman decide, but I can understand that position. Besides, has anyone's mind ever been changed through arguing about abortion? Heh.

Generalizing here, but most of the people voting for Obama will be people who want a change from the current administration and see McCain as an extentsion of the 'now'.

I get that as that's how I feel. But I'm back leaning towards McCain because of abortion and other issues. So there's probably more folks like me that want the 'Obama Change' but don't necessarily want everything he stands for to become a matter of policy...

I probably won't know who I'm voting for until I choose a name in the voting booth.

What makes you think you have the right to tell a women what she should do with her body? Unless you are the father, it's really none of your damn business. Why you people even waste your time on this issue really boggles my mind, especially considering the scope and magnitude of all the other problems we face in this country.

What makes you think you have the right to tell a women what she should do with her body?

Actually, there's precedent to telling people they can't do something to their own body (illegal drug laws).

But that aside, some people place as much (or nearly as much) value on the life of the "fetus" as they do on the woman's life, because they consider the fetus to be a separate creature rather than a part of the woman's body, even if the fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival. So, in their eyes, they're not telling a woman she can't control her own body. They're telling her that she can't harm the living being stored within her body. The end result will be the same in both cases, but your accusation is off-base because pro-lifers don't feel they're telling a woman what she can do to her body. They feel they're telling a woman what she can do to the innocent creature within her body. They aren't trying to be malicious; they're trying to be protective.

Your opinion differs because the starting point of your beliefs originate from a different place. If one believes that the fetus is not a living creature, or that the woman can do whatever she wants to anything inside her body, of that the woman's life is more important than that of a fetus's life, then you'll likely reach a different conclusion than a pro-life person will, and it will be very difficult for any compromise to be reached. This is all "Abortion Debate 101" stuff, though, and anyone who bothers to think about this issue at all should already know this stuff.

Quote

Why you people even waste your time on this issue really boggles my mind, especially considering the scope and magnitude of all the other problems we face in this country.

You think it's mind-boggling that people care about this issue. Others think it's mind-boggling that people like yourself care so little about this issue, or at least do so little to understand why it matters so much to those on the other side. It's not difficult to understand and sympathize with the views of both sides on this issue.

Generalizing here, but most of the people voting for Obama will be people who want a change from the current administration and see McCain as an extentsion of the 'now'.

I get that as that's how I feel. But I'm back leaning towards McCain because of abortion and other issues. So there's probably more folks like me that want the 'Obama Change' but don't necessarily want everything he stands for to become a matter of policy...

I probably won't know who I'm voting for until I choose a name in the voting booth.

What makes you think you have the right to tell a women what she should do with her body? Unless you are the father, it's really none of your damn business. Why you people even waste your time on this issue really boggles my mind, especially considering the scope and magnitude of all the other problems we face in this country.

glyc

Yes, why should we waste time at all with people killing others, hell lets just ignore all murders and everything as we have other bigger problems facing the nation.

Actually, there's precedent to telling people they can't do something to their own body (illegal drug laws).

But that aside, some people place as much (or nearly as much) value on the life of the "fetus" as they do on the woman's life, because they consider the fetus to be a separate creature rather than a part of the woman's body, even if the fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival. So, in their eyes, they're not telling a woman she can't control her own body. They're telling her that she can't harm the living being stored within her body. The end result will be the same in both cases, but your accusation is off-base because pro-lifers don't feel they're telling a woman what she can do to her body. They feel they're telling a woman what she can do to the innocent creature within her body. They aren't trying to be malicious; they're trying to be protective.

Your opinion differs because the starting point of your beliefs originate from a different place. If one believes that the fetus is not a living creature, or that the woman can do whatever she wants to anything inside her body, of that the woman's life is more important than that of a fetus's life, then you'll likely reach a different conclusion than a pro-life person will, and it will be very difficult for any compromise to be reached. This is all "Abortion Debate 101" stuff, though, and anyone who bothers to think about this issue at all should already know this stuff.

Quote

Why you people even waste your time on this issue really boggles my mind, especially considering the scope and magnitude of all the other problems we face in this country.

You think it's mind-boggling that people care about this issue. Others think it's mind-boggling that people like yourself care so little about this issue, or at least do so little to understand why it matters so much to those on the other side. It's not difficult to understand and sympathize with the views of both sides on this issue.

First off, drugs are illegal and abortion isn't so let's just keep that in mind. The fact of the matter is conception occurs between two people, and no matter what you believe it's really none of your business if you aren't one of those two people. I have three wonderful children, ages 10 through 12. Now I know it was the right choice for myself and their mother to keep them, but it was our choice. It sounds to me like you are saying just because someone else believes that conception is the starting point for life, I should honor that belief and throw my own aside? By that definition then we should just murder all the "infidels", right? I mean that's what your everyday Muslim extremist believes, pretty strongly I might add. What about Nazi's and skinheads? They believe that white people are the master race and everyone else should serve, so again should we honor that? Of course not, but saying you should honor one person's belief and not another is the purest form of hypocrisy. To you and I, your average skin head or Muslim extremist have some very different and very wrong beliefs, but that does not make them any less dedicated to it than we are to our own. The difference here is that only one mentioned does no harm to others, because again not everyone shares the same view of when life actually starts. Just because you or I may think something is right, doesn't mean we should push that belief on others who don't feel the same way. That's not America, not by a long shot. I think the constitution says something in there about freedom of religion, doesn't it? I know it might be a news flash to our right-wing religious friends out there, but not everyone shares their beliefs and thus should not be bound by them. Now I'll pull a brett and give you the old .

And brett, I'm not even going to waste my time giving you a personal response because it just isn't worth it. Your brain can't comprehend anything out of your own narrow view point, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So what is the definition of when life begins that defines aborting as "murder"? It appears the pro-life crowd get to "choose" this as they see fit

Typically conception I think.

A better question would be when does consciousness begin? Does it begin just after conception, or does it begin after the brain has formed and begins to function? My personal belief is the latter, to each his own, right? We do still live in America, don't we? Like I said above, I'm a father times 3 and I still would not rule out abortion if it seemed like the right choice for the given situation. It would be a choice my girlfriend and I would make together, no one else needs to voice their opinion because frankly (like I said above) it's none of their damn business.

The fact of the matter is conception occurs between two people, and no matter what you believe it's really none of your business if you aren't one of those two people.

You're apparently not understanding the pro-life position. If some woman I don't know chooses to murder her 8 year old son, is that any of my business? Should I get involved or just let her and the father deal with it? Many pro-lifers think that is a human soul created upon conception - a soul just like an 8 year old's or a 42 year old's, or whatever.

Quote

I have three wonderful children, ages 10 through 12.

Why is it no one has three rotten children?

Quote

To you and I, your average skin head or Muslim extremist have some very different and very wrong beliefs, but that does not make them any less dedicated to it than we are to our own.

That's the thing though. They know they are right that upon conception a human soul is created. They know you are wrong to think otherwise. Opinions don't matter here. These are beliefs. Using the same example, if that woman with an 8 year old believes it is her right to kill her son, is that legitimate? Of course not and we would never allow it. That's why arguing about abortion is so meaningless. You can't really argue against someone who thinks life begins at conception.

Quote

Just because you or I may think something is right, doesn't mean we should push that belief on others who don't feel the same way. That's not America, not by a long shot.

Gah. That *is* America. That is every country. Law is created from morality (and vice versa, somewhat). We believe murder is wrong, so we outlaw it. We believe stealing is wrong, so we outlaw it. Etc.

Besides, has anyone's mind ever been changed through arguing about abortion? Heh.

How about Mitt Romney?

Last time I checked Libertarians have both pro-choice and pro-life members. Congressman Ron Paul, even though registered under the republican party, is a libertarian and very pro-life.Bob Barr, the libertarian party's presidential candidate is also pro-life.

Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."

It is always interesting hearing "pro-life" when in many cases it is just pro-life as far as conception goes.

It always seems very hypocritical to me to be so adamant you know when life begins but so many people can find wiggle room for "thou shalt not kill" in other areas of life. Why is it that that can get reinterpreted to allow and even be happy there is a death penalty or that we have a military that kills, at times innocent civilians.

If you pick conception as happening at the zygote stage then good ole mother nature murders far more than man. Or as "pro-life" do you also get choose your definition of conception.

Bob Barr and Newt appear to have a lot in common and McCain for that matter. Each dumped their first wives and kids to move up and all apparently were very "honorable" about it (since so many other words are getting turned upside down these days I figure honor works here in a very Orwellian sense).

And another vector related to the topic. Has anyone read the Kwame Kilpatrick story and after reading that if you have read extensively about Sarah Palin, I see a lot of similarity.

What struck me as similar is the way they behaved in office. Limiting who can bid on contracts, the nepotism/cronyism, the almost constant abuse or near abuse of power. What I love about these people including most of the current Capitol Hill crowd is that they are not bound by "appearance of impropriety" like non-appointed government and military are.

I wish there were some stories of officials governing well and and at least somewhat selflessly.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

It seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that you know better in either case, as you are not a woman nor a pilot. And in the case of "pro-life", granting the government power over a woman's body seems like a bad idea to me. I'm just glad that men cannot conceive. Otherwise the 2nd Amendment could get a whole lot more interesting.

The problem is you assume your position is inherently correct, and you force your own morality on another through government mandate.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 01:32:28 AM by PeteRock »

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

It seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that you know better in either case, as you are not a woman nor a pilot. And in the case of "pro-life", granting the government power over a woman's body seems like a bad idea to me. I'm just glad that men cannot conceive. Otherwise the 2nd Amendment could get a whole lot more interesting.

The problem is you assume your position is inherently correct, and you force your own morality on another through government mandate.

What are most laws besides forcing a code of morality through government mandate? The majority thinks their position is correct and laws are made to reflect that. Why would or should this be any different?

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

It seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that you know better in either case, as you are not a woman nor a pilot. And in the case of "pro-life", granting the government power over a woman's body seems like a bad idea to me. I'm just glad that men cannot conceive. Otherwise the 2nd Amendment could get a whole lot more interesting.

The problem is you assume your position is inherently correct, and you force your own morality on another through government mandate.

What are most laws besides forcing a code of morality through government mandate? The majority thinks their position is correct and laws are made to reflect that. Why would or should this be any different?

This mandate is driven by religion. While determining murder or theft to be illegal preserves a level of societal order, an outright outlaw of abortion is driven by religion, not societal standards.

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

It seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that you know better in either case, as you are not a woman nor a pilot. And in the case of "pro-life", granting the government power over a woman's body seems like a bad idea to me. I'm just glad that men cannot conceive. Otherwise the 2nd Amendment could get a whole lot more interesting.

The problem is you assume your position is inherently correct, and you force your own morality on another through government mandate.

What are most laws besides forcing a code of morality through government mandate? The majority thinks their position is correct and laws are made to reflect that. Why would or should this be any different?

This mandate is driven by religion. While determining murder or theft to be illegal preserves a level of societal order, an outright outlaw of abortion is driven by religion, not societal standards.

Wrong, religion has nothing to do with the reason I and I am sure many others consider abortion murder. And last time I checked, thou shall not murder and thou shall not steal are religious commandments.

Wrong, religion has nothing to do with the reason I and I am sure many others consider abortion murder. And last time I checked, thou shall not murder and thou shall not steal are religious commandments.

But in order to consider it "murder" you must determine the beginning of human life. Human life must first exist for it to be taken. And within the category of life you have to consider sentient life versus generic life. And here is where faith and belief factor into the equation. When does life begin? At the point of sentience, or at conception? Until a determination of when "true" life begins is reached we're left with beliefs and faith. You may believe life to begin at conception. But at this point we're merely talking about cells. Cells in general are alive. And in this case cancerous cells are alive, and yet removed by will. When does human life begin in order to qualify abortion as "murder"? What you may consider to be "life" may not be the societal standard, and it is routed in what you believe, not necessarily what has been scientifically established.

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

Only because you have made the "choice" of when a human being that has rights begins. If you say fertilized egg, then once again I will say into the silence, then God needs to be brought up on charges by the pro-life movement.

I am fascinated though whether you pro-lifers support war and the attendant killing of human beings that have nothing to do with the conflict directly? By your definition of above then that is murder too ....or do you "choose" to define that differently?

*substitute with: economy, healthcare, foreign relations, Depends brand adult diapers, and hearing loss. Please consult your doctor before voting, as a large dose of Palinol may be hazardous to your health. Side affects of using Palinol in combonation with McCainisec include, stroke, heart attack, increased blood pressure, incontinence, and hemorrhoids. If when using Palinol and erection lasts more than 4 hours, consult the Hillary Clinton website, that should kill the little bastard.

Conception as in zygotes? Then God would appear to be the biggest murderer of all.

In these cases, most of the time the Christian response to this boils down to "might makes right". God can do whatever he wants, including ordering 2 bears to rip apart 42 children for insulting Elijah, or order the Jews to slaughter women & children (including running infants through with swords) as he did in the Old Testament.

God is against abortion? This is the same God that slaughtered children in the OT.

*substitute with: economy, healthcare, foreign relations, Depends brand adult diapers, and hearing loss. Please consult your doctor before voting, as a large dose of Palinol may be hazardous to your health. Side affects of using Palinol in combonation with McCainisec include, stroke, heart attack, increased blood pressure, incontinence, and hemorrhoids. If when using Palinol and erection lasts more than 4 hours, consult the Hillary Clinton website, that should kill the little bastard.

But I find it willfully ignorant that some people believe that Murder and Theft are illegal because the commandments of their one religion out of the many world religions forbids such acts, and since the acts were outlawed where they live, the laws must be a representation of a majority belief in the religion rather than the principles of the laws stand for unto themselves.

One doesn't have to believe in any religion at all and can still decide that Murder and Theft are wrong, and there exists religions which believed it was wrong long before the founding and scriptures of the Jewish or Christian religions. Many religions that sprang forth following these also believe Murder and Theft are wrong.

Some people need the threat of punishment under law to motivate them to conform to society. Laws exist to handle the times where people chose on their own to not behave in the adherence to the common good. Even in such a world, People can be good without religion or laws to guide them. Some people can manage to be good their whole life, as if there were no laws at all to govern them. They just choose it for themselves, mandated or not.

Of all the topics that there are to back a candidate for in this day and age, with war and the economy crumbling, it boggles the mind that the one item you list is abortion.

I'm not going to argue the point as it's a waste of time.

Quote

You are not a woman. Let them choose on their own.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

You are comparing letting a woman choose what to do with her body to a pilot crashing a plane and killing people.....wow.

Well her 'choice' does involve killing another human being.

Only if you can prove that the "victim" is in fact a "human being". And so far your definition is based on your own belief structure, not on scientific evidence for proven sentience. And I would expect your definition of "human being" to also fit your belief structure so as to ensure that your perspective is established, at least in your own mind.

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

The abortion debate is effectively over as a national political issue anyway. The Bush presidency was the anti-abortion side's high water mark, and they failed to overturn Roe v Wade or even weaken it substantially. Even if McCain pulls a hat trick tomorrow, there is very little chance now that abortion rights will be rescinded, since he does not represent the moralistic wing of the Rep Party. (Only the nightmare Palin scenario would revive abortion as a political issue). The moralizers are likely to be further marginalized as the Rep Party reforms itself during Obama's administration, since their support is what cost McCain the moderates and therefore the presidency. If the Rep Party is to resurge in 2012, it will need to do so primarily as the party of fiscal restraint, with a secondary emphasis on militarism.

It would be more productive for everybody if both sides were to cooperate on finding ways to reduce the abortion rate.

Of all the topics that there are to back a candidate for in this day and age, with war and the economy crumbling, it boggles the mind that the one item you list is abortion.

I'm not going to argue the point as it's a waste of time.

Quote

You are not a woman. Let them choose on their own.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

You are comparing letting a woman choose what to do with her body to a pilot crashing a plane and killing people.....wow.

Well her 'choice' does involve killing another human being.

Only if you can prove that the "victim" is in fact a "human being". And so far your definition is based on your own belief structure, not on scientific evidence for proven sentience. And I would expect your definition of "human being" to also fit your belief structure so as to ensure that your perspective is established, at least in your own mind.

I base it completely on scientific evidence, human life begins at conception, that is a simple biological fact, nothing is going to change that, it has nothing to do with religion, a belief structure or anything like that, it comes from 8th grade biology.

Of all the topics that there are to back a candidate for in this day and age, with war and the economy crumbling, it boggles the mind that the one item you list is abortion.

I'm not going to argue the point as it's a waste of time.

Quote

You are not a woman. Let them choose on their own.

True, I'm not. I'm also not a pilot so I guess I should let them choose whether or not to let them land the plane upside down.

You are comparing letting a woman choose what to do with her body to a pilot crashing a plane and killing people.....wow.

Well her 'choice' does involve killing another human being.

Only if you can prove that the "victim" is in fact a "human being". And so far your definition is based on your own belief structure, not on scientific evidence for proven sentience. And I would expect your definition of "human being" to also fit your belief structure so as to ensure that your perspective is established, at least in your own mind.

I base it completely on scientific evidence, human life begins at conception, that is a simple biological fact, nothing is going to change that, it has nothing to do with religion, a belief structure or anything like that, it comes from 8th grade biology.

But in order to call abortion "murder", the crime must be committed against another human person. Until you have an actual human to kill, it cannot be considered "murder". After all, a zygote is not an actual person. At least not yet.

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.